delft university of technology qmra of an indoor swimming pool chlorination … · swimming pool...

Delft University of Technology

QMRA of an indoor swimming poolChlorination versus UV-based treatment (PPT)Peters, Marjolein; Keuten, Maarten; de Kreuk, Merle; Vrouwenvelder, Hans; Rietveld, Luuk; Medema,Gertjan

Publication date2017Document VersionAccepted author manuscriptCitation (APA)Peters, M., Keuten, M., de Kreuk, M., Vrouwenvelder, H., Rietveld, L., & Medema, G. (2017). QMRA of anindoor swimming pool: Chlorination versus UV-based treatment (PPT). 7th International Conference 2017on Swimming Pool and Spa Waters, Kos Island, Greece.

Important noteTo cite this publication, please use the final published version (if applicable).Please check the document version above.

CopyrightOther than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consentof the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.

Takedown policyPlease contact us and provide details if you believe this document breaches copyrights.We will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

This work is downloaded from Delft University of Technology.For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to a maximum of 10.

1

HELLEBREKERST E C H N I E K E N

QMRA of an indoor

swimming pool

Chlorination versus UV-based treatment

Marjolein Peters1, Maarten Keuten1,2, Merle de Kreuk1,

Hans Vrouwenvelder1, Luuk Rietveld1 and GertJan Medema1

1) Delft University 2) Hellebrekers Technieken

2

HELLEBREKERST E C H N I E K E N

Alternative disinfection

• Good microbial water quality with UV-

based treatment

• What are the risks of infection compared

to chlorination?

Introduction

Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment

(QMRA)

3

HELLEBREKERST E C H N I E K E N

QMRA parameters (swimming pool)

• Competition pool: 25x10x2 m3

• Turnover time:

– Chlorinated: 4 h

– UV-based treatment: 30 min

• bathing load: 40 bathers /h

• Swimming: 12h /day

Methods

4

HELLEBREKERST E C H N I E K E N

QMRA parameters (micro-organisms)

• Campylobacter jejuni

• Escherichia coli O157:H7

• Salmonella enterica

• Cryptosporidium parvum

Methods

5

HELLEBREKERST E C H N I E K E N

Micro-organism release

• Enterobacter release bathers: 9% (Peters et al. 2016)

• Intact cell release distribution (Keuten et al. 2013)

– 0-5 min: 3.0x109 intact cells 1.06 g faecal matter

– 6-10 min: 2.7x109 intact cells 979 mg faecal matter

– 11-15 min: 1.4x109 intact cells 518 mg faecal matter

– 16-20 min: 1.3x109 intact cells 473 mg faecal matter

– 21-25 min: 0.4x109 intact cells 158 mg faecal matter

– 26-30 min: 0.4x109 intact cells 143 mg faecal matter

Methods

6

HELLEBREKERST E C H N I E K E N

Pathogen release

• Faecal matter: 108 pathogens /g

• Pathogens within (de Wit et al. 2001):

– Campylobacter jejuni: 1.3%

– Escherichia coli O157:H7: 0.3%

– Salmonella enterica: 0.4%

– Cryptosporidium parvum: 0.1%

• Pool basin is homogeneously mixed

Methods

7

HELLEBREKERST E C H N I E K E N

QMRA parameters (bathers)

• Swim duration: 1h

• 59 swimming events per year

• 100% pre-swim shower

• Only continual release (no incidental)

• Water ingestion: 13,7 mL / bather (Suppes et al. 2014)

• Infection probability NL: 283/1000 (de Wit et al. 2001)

Methods

8

HELLEBREKERST E C H N I E K E N

Treatment

• Chlorination;

– 3 log reduction in 1 minute (Blaser 1986)

for C. jejuni, E. coli and S. enterica

– Cryptosporidium removal by filtration

1 log reduction per filter passage (Amburgey 2011)

• UV-based treatment

– 5 log removal / inactivation per treatment

Methods

9

HELLEBREKERST E C H N I E K E N

Dose response models

• Beta-Poisson model:

• Exponential model:

– Cryptosporidium; k = 0.057 (Messner et al. 2011)

Methods

α β

Campylobacter jejuni 0.144 7285 (Black et al. 1988)

Escherichia coli O157:H7 0.155 24386 (DuPont et al. 1971)

Salmonella enterica 0.175 10776 (Hornick 1966, 1970)

10

HELLEBREKERST E C H N I E K E N

Results chlorinationResults

11

HELLEBREKERST E C H N I E K E N

Results UV-based treatmentResults

12

HELLEBREKERST E C H N I E K E N

Results

Average

concentration

(n/L)

Dose

(n/swim)

Infection

risk

Yearly

infection

risk

C. jejuniChlorination 6.4 x 10-5 8.8 x 10-7 1.7 x 10-11 1.0 x 10-9

UV-based 1.8 2.5 x 10-2 4.8 x 10-7 2.8 x 10-5

E. coliChlorination 6.9 x 10-6 9.5 x 10-8 6.0 x 10-13 3.6 x 10-11

UV-based 2.0 x 10-1 2.7 x 10-3 1.7 x 10-8 1.0 x 10-6

S. entericaChlorination 7.9 x 10-5 1.1 x 10-6 1.8 x 10-11 1.0 x 10-9

UV-based 2.2 3.1 x 10-2 5.0 x 10-7 3.0 x 10-5

C. parvumChlorination 3.3 x 10-1 4.6 x 10-3 4.3 x 10-3 1.5 x 10-2

UV-based 5.2 x 10-2 7.2 x 10-4 6.9 x 10-4 2.4 x 10-3

Results

13

HELLEBREKERST E C H N I E K E N

Sensitivity analysis for E. coli (UV-based treatment)

• Bathers / m3: 40/500 10/5 (toddler or hwp)

• Turnover time: 30 240 min

• Treatment: 5-log 1-log reduction

• Swimming events: 59 260 /year (5/wk)

• Simultaneous bathers: 40 108

• Infected bathers: 2/40 11/40

• Ingested pool water: 13.7 51 mL

• E. coli in faecal matter: 0.3% 10%

• Pathogens in faeces: 108 1010

Results

14

HELLEBREKERST E C H N I E K E N

Sensitivity analysis for E. coliValue

Ref.

Value

worst

case

P[inf]

ref

P[inf]

max

Value

max/ref

P[inf]

max/ref

Influence

Bathers / m3 12.5 0.5 1.0x10-6 2.5x10-5 0.04 25 625

Turnover time 30 240 1.0x10-6 6.0x10-6 8 5.95 0.7

Treatment eff. 0.99999 0.9 1.0x10-6 1.1x10-6 0.9 1.11 1.2

Swim events 59 260 1.0x10-6 4.5x10-6 4.4 4.4 1.0

Bathers 40 108 1.0x10-6 2.7x10-6 2.7 2.7 1.0

Infected bathers 5% 28% 1.0x10-6 5.6x10-6 5.56 5.56 1.0

Ingested water 13.7 51 1.0x10-6 3.8x10-6 3.72 3.7 1.0

E.coli% pathogens 0.3% 10% 1.0x10-6 3.4x10-5 33.3 33.4 1.0

Path.in faeces 108 1010 1.0x10-6 1.0x10-4 100 100 1.0

Results

15

HELLEBREKERST E C H N I E K E N

Moment of exposureResults

Influence = 14

16

HELLEBREKERST E C H N I E K E N

Conclusions

• Yearly risk of infection with UV-based

treatment higher than treatment with

chlorination

• All risks <10-4, except for Cryptosporidium

• For Cryptosporidium, best removal with UV-

based treatment

Conclusions

17

HELLEBREKERST E C H N I E K E N

Acknowledgements

• Financing organisations: Ministry of economic affairs, European Fund for Regional Development (EFRO), HellebrekersTechnieken, van Remmen UV Techniek, AkzoNobel Industrial Chemicals, Coram International and Sportfondsen Nederland

HELLEBREKERST E C H N I E K E N

m.g.a.keuten@tudelft.nl

Questions ?

Thanks for your attention